Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.@mdashThis appeal is filed against the judgment of Matrimonial Court, Patiala, who, on a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce had dismissed the divorce petition.
2. The petitioner had sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The solemnization of marriage between the parties which took place on 26-2-1975 at village Chupki according to Hindu rites and their cohabitation as husband and wife and the birth of child born from the wedlock in 1976 is not in dispute. The allegation against the wife is that she left the matrimonial home in 1985 with the child and ornaments and never returned. The respondent-wife filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It is alleged that the parties suffered statements and after making the statements, the respondent-wife backed out and did not go with the petitioner.
3. The plea of the respondent-wife is that conduct of the petitionerwas not good and she was being maltreated and was forced to leave the matrimonial home in the year 1985.
4. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues :--
(1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty ? OPP.
(2)Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for more than two years before filing of the petition ? OPP.
(3)Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce ? OPP.
(4)Relief.
5. In order to substantiate the allegations the petitioner stepped into the witness box. No documentary evidence was produced to show that there was any harassment at the hands of the wife. Rather, Bimla Devi respondent, had denied the suggestion that the petitioner and his brothers were got arrested by the police of Police Station, Samana. Similarly, father of the respondent-wife had denied the suggestion that the petitioner and his brothers were got arrested by the Police. The Court had returned a categoric finding that the petitioner Harjinder Singh or his brothers were never got by the respondent. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the respondent-wife is guilty of cruelty. From the paper book it is observed that effort was made to reconcile the matter between the parties when petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed in default vide order dated 6-11-1986. Bimla Devi had also filed petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. in which interim maintenance was granted to her by the Court at Samana. It is also revealed from the record that petitioner had taken Bimla Devi to village Suller where petitioner lived with her for one day only and left her there alone in the house of Saroj Rani. The respondent stayed there for 2/3 days thereafter and the appellant did not turn up. It is also observed that the grand-mother of Harjinder Singh had accompanied Bimla Devi and had left her at the house of her parents. This material fact was concealed by the appellant.
6. In view of this, it cannot be said that Bimla Devi bad treated the appellant with cruelty or had deserted him. It is the appellant who is responsible for the sorry state of affairs. The result is that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order of the learned Matrimonial Court and this appeal is dismissed being without and merit. No costs.
